avon b7

canukstorm said:

avon b7 said:

canukstorm said:

avon b7 said:

blastdoor said:

avon b7 said:

igorsky said:

avon b7 said:

That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.

The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.

What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works. 

Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue. 

The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist. 

So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist? 

That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves. 

Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault. 

It's all a question of perspective. These are new times for digital services and hardware. It should all be put into the system, scrutinised and dealt with. The Google search default on iPhones is also being scrutinised. Different places could well see things differently. 

This is the beginning. The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. 

As for food and drink in movie theaters, they try that here (signs and all) but it is actually illegal to stop someone taking their own food and drink into a movie theater if the theater offers its own options. The reason being that food and drink isn't the main business of movie theaters. 

Again, different places see things in different ways. 

We'll have to wait and see how the DoJ plays it and how Apple responds. 

"The EU has a lead here and we already know (or have a very good idea) what is expected. "

The EU is not leading on anything.  This is nothing but the EU trying to regulate their way out of becoming economically irrelevant because they, and their companies, don't have what it takes to compete on an even playing field.  If you can't compete, regulate.  That's the EU's motto right now.   As far as the DOJ's case goes, it is wrong on the facts and the law.  It should have never brought.  If I were Apple's lawyers, I wouldn't pay the EU a penny of whatever fines they're thinking of levying, and I would go to town on the DOJ.

The EU has led the way on pretty much all the major legislative efforts related to 'digital'. 

WEEE, RoHS, GDPR, right to be forgotten, consumer protection, common chargers, Big Tech, Cyber Security... 

An AI directive is advancing well. 

If you read the just the preamble to most of those directives you will see why they are needed. That is basically accepted by all parties. That is why they got approved. 

They are also models for other parts of the world. 

The EU competes very well and the last time I checked there were a lot more US-EU strategic dependencies than EU-US strategic dependencies. 

Much is being said about the US Chips Act but long before that became something to talk about the EU was implementing its own chip road map. 

The EU rolled out widespread EMV payment support about a decade before the US. 

Interoperability within the banking and ICT sectors was dealt with long ago. 

'Common' policies were introduced to resolve big problems and have succeeded in many areas. 

No, the EU does not compete very well.  It's an economically decaying and cratering system.  The only way it can compete is by legislating itself to death.  A true mark of an irrelevant system.

aross99 said:

avon b7 said:

The problems arise though when manufacturers try to limit accessibility unnaturally to their platforms. That might be a different story. I don't know if that's the case. 

Why is this a problem?  If you do't like the way the platform works, switch to another platform or just don't buy one.

It's not Apple's job as a company to make it easy for their competitors to integrate with their products.  If it makes business sense for them to do so, then they will, if it doesn't then they won't.

If you don't like the way Apple does business, they don't buy their products.  It's that simple.  Why should Apple have to do anything to help their competitors integrate with their platform?  We are talking about a cell phone platform that has at most a 50% market share in the US and less world wide.  The alternative platform is fully comparable and 100% a viable solution.

All of these lawsuits are trying to tear down the very things that we Apple users WANT, and are a significant reason why we pay "the Apple tax" as people like to say.

I don't want to be ablate side load apps.  I don't want to multiple app stores, and I don't want things like "walmart pay" to junk up my phone and ruin my iPhone experience.  We pay a PREMIUM the the privilege of NOT having to deal with these things.  I buy iPhones for all of my kids because i DONT want them to have Android phones and have to deal with the privacy and security issues there.  If one of my kids wants a Samsung phone that's fine, but they are on their own to buy one.

It that same with Windows.  I don't want a Widows PC.  Haven't ever bought one and have paid a significant premium for Apple products for 40 years now.

Call me an outlier if you will. but I think I am pretty representative of many Apple users today.  They won't even CONSIDER another phone.  Why should they?  NONE of the things these lawsuits are about are meaningful to them.  No one I know cares about side loading, or multiple app stores.  Hardly anyone I know even downloads third party software for their Mac's either.

Don't even get me started on iMessage.  The whole argument on messaging is ridiculous.  Are we really crying over Green bubbles?  Do you REALLY want to send SMS messages through What's App?  Do you even understand that SMS messages are not secure and can't support large attachments like high resolution images and videos?  I know, what about Google's RCS support.  Personally, I don't care.  Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE that I would send this type of information has an iPhone.  I know this isn't true for everyone, but there are so many other options you can use as well.  Don't want to use multiple messaging apps?  Aren't you already doing that with Facebook messenger, and Instagram DM's, and Twitter/X DM's?  Why does this have to be any different.

I get that some people WANT Apples to support Walmart Pay, or Google RCS, or download apps from the Epic App store, or from Joe's Web site, but the vast majority, and I am talking 95% or MORE do NOT want these features.  They just don't care.  What we DO care about is having these features ruin the platform that we actively sought out and selected because of these features.

Bottom line, if you don't like something Apple does, you are free to complain about it, but don't expect Apple (or any other company) to make changes for things that are not in their best interest.  They are a publicly traded company whose primary job is to make money for their shareholders.  If you don't like that, then don/t use their products.  Don't try to take one f the most successful companies in the world and change it into something that will ultimately ruin the experience the those of us to DO enjoy using their products.

That's the end of my rant.

blastdoor said:

avon b7 said:

igorsky said:

avon b7 said:

That 85% don't pay anything is utterly irrelevant. The point is that the remaining share is enough to generate billions upon billions in revenues because there is literally no competition allowed. Everything in that other group goes to Apple because alternative stores are not allowed to exist.

The same applies to the 'reduced' 15%' which only ever came into effect through regulatory scrutiny and complaints. Without that Apple wouldn't have conceded anything.

What are are you saying exactly…that Apple shouldn’t charge anything? That’s not how intellectual property works. 

Apple can charge whatever it wants. Why not 70%? That isn't the issue. 

The issue is that only Apple gets to charge because it doesn't allow other stores to exist. 

So Apple has a monopoly of the Apple market, eh? Kind of like how the movie theater doesn't allow outside food or drink? Or how if you go to your dentist, you can't choose a hygienist from another dentist? 

That approach to defining the market is absurd and if that's the basis for the DOJ's case (and it very well might be), then a victory by the DOJ would mean economic chaos. Consumers like bundles of goods and services. They don't want everything unbundled. To force that unbundling would harm consumers because it would impose on them the cost of creating those bundles themselves and doing all the integration themselves. 

Apple's practices are only potentially problematic if they are a monopoly. The revenue share argument strikes me as pretty weak. Apple is not stopping any other firm from offering a bundle of goods and services as attractive as theirs. Many other firms have the money and IP portfolios to pull it off. The thing holding them back isn't Apple, it's that their leadership is fundamentally corrupt and uninterested in creating a company like Apple, instead they are only interested in getting rich quick and moving on. That's not Apple's fault.